Sumer PalaeographyGilgamesh - sources of Inscriptions and Translations The version of the Epic of Gilgamesh submitted here is not a fresh translation from the cuneiform. Such a translation would require a detailed knowledge of the languages in which the various parts have survived - Sumerian, Akkadian and Hittite are the principal - and is a task which I am not competent to undertake. Several scholarly translations into English, French and German now exist, which provide accurate texts amplified by long explanatory notes. For the ordinary reader, who is not also an Assyriologist or student of Ancient literatures and history, these texts prove difficult reading, for they necessarily tend to emphasize rather than mitigate the short-comings of the original material. Every missing or doubtful word is marked by a gap or brackets. Moreover, the language is brought as close as possible to the structure of the Semitic or Sumerian original, which often makes poor English. This scholarly method gives the student and specialist what he needs, but presents the ordinary reader with a page which may look rather like an unfinished crossword puzzle.
The materials used in this compilation are as follows:
A. Heidel: Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels, second ed. 1949.
J.B. Pritchard: Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, second ed. 1955, third ed. 1969.
S.N. Kramer: Ancient Near Eastern Texts/ From the Tablets of Sumer, 1956.
O.R. Gurney: Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 1964.The version presented here is collated from many sources, similarly, as the scribes of Assurbanipal created the 'Standard Text' in the seventh century BCE, from many older Sumerian sources. This method fills many important gaps, particularly in the 'Forest Journey', and the borrowed missing parts alone provide the 'Destiny' and the 'Death of Gilgamesh'. Moreover, their quality is very high, and they improve the overall quality of the collation. The differences in detail between the Sumerian and the Old Babylonian are not greater than those that appear to exist between the Ninevite and Boghazköy recensions, which are generally combined by the modern translators; while the date of writing-down of the surviving Sumerian material (first half of the second millennium) is very close to that of the Old Babylonian of the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets (First Dynasty of Babylon). The Hittite version appears to diverge radically from the others in the later parts, but is valuable at several points, particularly in the conflict with Humbaba (Huwawa) and the first meeting with Urshanabi.
Gilgamesh and the Land of Living.
Tablet fragments from Nippur, held in Museum of Ancient Orient in Istanbul.The distribution of the material between the different tablets is as follows:
(i) The Sumerian poem 'Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living'; text from fourteen tablets found at Nippur, one at Kish, and two of unknown provenance, giving 175 lines extant. All date from the first half of the second millennium. The following incidents are covered: the friendship of the Lord Gilgamesh and his servant Enkidu, the need to set up a lasting name, entreaty of Utu (Shamash), who appoints supernatural helpers, arming of Gilgamesh and Enkidu, departure with fifty companions, felling the cedar, Gilgamesh overcome with weakness, dusk on the mountain, dialogue with Enkidu, Huwawa (Humbaba) found in his house, Gilgamesh uproots trees, goes to the house of Huwawa who pleads for his life and is refused on the advice of Enkidu, Huwawa is killed and his body presented to a furious Enlil. Here the Sumerian text breaks off.(ii) The Sumerian 'Death of Gilgamesh' is still very fragmentary and is not clear what is its relation to the other Gilgamesh poems, and especially to 'Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living'. The text followed here is taken from the three tablets found at Nippur, dated to the first half of the second millennium. Two fragments, 'A' and 'B', give Enlil's 'Destiny' of Gilgamesh, and the lament for the dead king and account of the funeral offerings; but recently Professor Kramer has identified other fragments which indicate that the 'Death' was inscribed on a tablet with at least 450 lines.
(iii) Old Babylonian version, dating from the first dynasty of Babylon, first half of the second millennium: the so-called 'Pennsylvania Tablet' gives the coming of Enkidu and the dreams of Gilgamesh concerning him. The 'Yale Tablet' has the preparation for the forest journey up to the departure from Uruk. The 'Meissner' fragment, from Sippar, gives the Siduri episode and the meeting with the ferry-man Sursunabu (Urshanabi). An independent publication of the Old Babylonian material was made by M. Jastrow and A.T. Clay in 1920 as An Old Babylonian Version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Recently another Old Babylonian fragment from Tell Išçali has been published by T. Bauer (see now Ancient Near Eastern Texts referring to the Old Testament). It deals with the death of Humbaba and does not differ from the Sumerian account so much as do the later Akkadian versions. From the Ur tablets in the British Museum (UET VI), we now have a slightly fuller Middle Babylonian version of Enkidu's sickness: C.J. Gadd, Iraq, 28, 1966, 105-21 and Old Babylonian fragments (published by A.R. Millard, Iraq, 26, 1964, 99) provide some additions to Tablet IX.
(iv) Hittite version, from tablets found at Boghazköy in central Anatolia, dated to the middle of the second millennium; these contain fragments of the description of Gilgamesh and of his endowments, the forest episode with the felling of the cedar, Enkidu's dream when he is sick and dying, and part of the journey to find Utnapishtim with the Siduri incident and the meeting with Urshanabi. From this point the story appears to diverge widely from other versions. The translation was published by J. Friedrich in the Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 39, 1929, and H. Otten, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 8, 1958, 93-125. Another fragment from the Hittite tablets from Boghazköy (KUB VIII, 48, 1924) published now by R. Stefanini, Journal of the Near Eastern Studies, 28, 1968, gives a slightly different version of the Council of Gods in Enkidu's deathbed dream.
(v) A Hurrian language fragment, also from Boghazköy, gives part of the journey to Utnapishtim. It was published in the Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, 35, 1923.
Reconstucted part of Tablet XI of six columns.
The tablets have been broken up by Babylonians, Scythians, and Medes in 612 BCE, when they destroyed the library of Nineveh.(vi) Semitic versions. An Akkadian version was used in the Hittite Empire and fragments have been found at Boghazköy; but the fullest of all versions is the Assyrian. Originally it was written on twelve tablets of six columns and approximately three hundred lines to each tablet; parts of all twelve still exist. Nearly all are from the palace library at Nineveh, and are seventh century BCE. Based on earlier material, these cover all the incidents of the story up to the return from the search for Utnapishtim. The material is divided as follows: Tablet I, descriptions of Gilgamesh and of Enkidu up to the end of Gilgamesh's second dream concerning Enkidu. Tablet II, very fragmentary, probably covered the encounter of Gilgamesh and Enkidu and the first mention of cedar forest. Tablet III, also very fragmentary, probably has Gilgamesh's interviews with the counsellors, with Ninsun, and the commission to Enkidu. Tablet IV, of which only a few lines survive, probably covered the journey to the forest and the arrival at the gate. Tablet V had the description of the forest, the dreams on the mountain, and probably the meeting with and killing of Humbaba. Tablet VI had the encounter of Gilgamesh and Ishtar, the incident of the Bull of Heaven, and the beginning of Enkidu's sickness. Tablet VII had Enkidu's sickness continued, his dreams and death. Tablet VIII had the lament over Enkidu and probably a description of the funeral. Tablet IX covers Gilgamesh's journey to find Utnapishtim up to the meeting with Siduri. Tablet X covers the Siduri incident, Urshanabi, and finding of Utnapishtim. Tablet XI is the fullest and best preserved of all, with over three hundred extant lines. It describes the Deluge, the testings of Gilgamesh, and his return to Uruk. There is no death of Gilgamesh in the Assyrian recension, and the twelfth and last tablet recounts a separate incident, an alternative to the death of Enkidu as recounted in Tablet VII. Tablet XII is a direct translation from Sumerian original, which has also survived in part. The relationship between the two has been discussed by Prof. Kramer in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, 64, 1944; and by several writers, especially L. Matouš in Gilgameš et sa légende.
(vii) The Sultantepe Akkadian fragment. This was excavated by Mr Seton Lloyd and Bay Nuri Gökçe in 1951. Two one-column tablets were found, one a fragment with Enkidu's sickness, and the other with Gilgamesh's lament over Enkidu; and probably also a description of the funeral, and the statue of Enkidu raised by Gilgamesh. Although very short, both fragments fill gaps in the Nineveh recension from which they differ slightly, and Dr Gurney, who has published them in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 8, 1954, and Anatolian Studies, II, 1952, thinks they are schoolboy's work with characteristic mistakes.
[Mesopotamian Protohistory] [Cuneiform Writing] [Sumer Writing] [Sumer Language] [Historical Sources] [Material Sources]
